New EEP draft: Pinning operator ^ in patterns
Thu Jan 28 12:57:53 CET 2021
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 01:35:27PM +0300, Р.С. Алиев wrote:
> > If the people who rely on Erlang for their businesses and their jobs
> > have needs that are not fulfilled by the language as it is, then either
> > the language can evolve or those users will eventually move to another
> > language, either on Beam or on some other platform, leaving Erlang in
> > the eternal maintenance realm of Cobol, with no new systems being
> > written in it, and no new users apart from those dragged in to keep some
> > old system running. Would you prefer that?
> "Hey y'all, accept this half-baked, not really necessary and
> core-breaking feature, OR ELSE! BOO!"
Can you please explain why you think the proposal is half-baked.
The feature is not strictly necessary, but I and many others recognize that
it would improve readability. Must all changes that are not strictly
necessary be forbidden? How can we then achieve improvement?
Can you please explain why you state that the feature proposal
is core-breaking? I have tried to explain many times why I do not agree to
that, and still this statement comes up instead of counter-arguments.
I think "OR ELSE! BOO!" is an unnecessary exaggeration of a probable
description of what might happen to a language that does not try to evolve
out of old issues
> With all due respect, it's getting really desperate to the point of
I would say that that kind of gut responses are both annoying and
> С уважением,
> Р.С. Алиев
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions